Comments

1) Mushroom Observer is great for observations that have supporting specimens. I have never seen a herbarium database that would allow interaction between the persons who created the particular record and the other database users. Within 24 hours from the posting, we seem to be more aware of the Flammulaster muricatus problems. On the other hand, I don’t have too high opinion about MO Observations without herbarium specimens.
2) I don’t like the “group” designation. In her article, Else Vellinga discussed several similar taxa close to F. muricatus, but I don’t see any problem with calling both our collections “F. muricatus” (or perhaps F. muricatus s.l.) and wait until somebody would have a closer look at the specimens (or their DNA). Professional mycologists are also careful not to give a definite ID for the specimens they did not have in their hand.
3) Oluna has drawings for the majority of the observations we posted lately, but we have not been able to scan them. We are using the scanner at the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory on “The Hill”. Our friend astronomer, through whose computer we access the scanner, fell down from the rock, where his house is standing, and cracked two of his lumbar vertebrae. He seems to be OK now and we will scan Oluna drawings soon.
4) I don’t have to repeat that we are grateful to you for all your comments. And also thanks to Nathan for this marvelous piece of software.

I posted our observation too fast and I added our answers to your question in the Notes just now. In her treatment, Else Vellinga considers Flammulaster erinaceellus to be a misapplied name under Flammulaster muricatus. See also our earlier posting of the same fungus collected at the same location (but not at the same site!):http://mushroomobserver.org/64064
where you should read Vellinga’s comments to her Proposed Name.

How did you come to this conclusion with such conviction? Smith mentions this taxon several times in his Pholiota book as being highly ambiguous. It would appear that several authors over the years have written dramatically different descriptions for specimens labeled with this epithet.

“We have avoided using the name Pholiota muricata for a North American species because of more than one concept extant in Europe for this species at the present time. Singer (1963, p. 597) indicates that Naucoria mexicana is a synonym of it. It is clear to us that much of what has passed under the name Pholiota muricata in North America is the species we recognize under the name Pholiota granulosa (Peck in White). We prefer not to recognize Naucoria mexicana as a Pholiota until a critical revision of “Phaeomarasmius” is made."

“Pholiota muricata is said to differ (from P. erinaceella) in having distinctly yellow gills when young. This is not the color in the material we have seen of Peck’s species. In veil characters and cheilocystidia, however, the two should appear very similar. It is possible that P. muricata and P. erinaceella have been confused in the Michigan flora as Singer (1955) describes P. erinaceella as having yellowish gills. Smith confirmed this identification. At that time a species more like P. granulosa was passing under the name P. muricata in the United States.”

Have you considered one of the species in Smith’s stirps Aurea? A cursory examination of your microscopic and macro photos seems to suggest that Flammulaster erinaceellus is a strong possibility.